If you live in a democracy you may be counting your lucky stars. No dictatorship for you. Of course, what goes hand-in-hand with a democratic society is a free press as it was known - a free media in modern speak.

For the purposes of this article, I will split the media into two categories: partisan and non-partisan. By partisan, I am not just referring to a political party but any party, or pressure group, that has an axe to grind. Usually partisan media is biased either to the left or to the right of politics. Some outlets claim to be in the middle but reserve the right to take a view on specific issues. Some others exist to promote - or decry - a specific issue or limited basket of issues.

In most countries, partisan media tends to be print and internet. Non-partisan media tends to be broadcast media. I know there are plenty of exceptions (e.g. many local radio stations in the U.S., Russia etc), but I am taking liberties with a sweeping generalization.

With media that is partisan we usually are aware from which angle they are coming from. We would probably not choose to consume this media if we were not sympathetic with the thrust of the given publication. With partisan media you generally are aware that you are receiving information where the emphasis is weighted a certain way.

What is of greater concern is media that is supposedly unbiased. Usually, as stated, this is broadcast media and often this impartial, non-partisan output is stipulated by law. In theory we should be able to count on these outlets as a safe haven for straightforward and accurate information. Broadcast media in western countries is generally free of government interference as long as what they broadcast is decent, truthful and, of course, is impartial. But is there any such thing as unbiased reporting of news? How can this be measured? A crude method used by some broadcasters is to count complaints from the left and from the right. If the two balance then that's all right then. Trouble is, most complainers do not declare which part of the political spectrum they are complaining from, so this complaint-counting exercise is in itself subject to valued judgements and therefore bias.

In the UK the BBC has about half the share of total broadcasting. It is one of those organizations that is charged with providing unbiased news and information. The problem with the BBC, as with other similar organizations around the world is they decide what news to broadcast and in what order or priority; they decide who to interview and they ask the questions. Don't get me wrong - I wouldn't want it any other way. To have a media outlet controlled by government, for example, would be potentially disastrous. But the ability to set the news agenda gives large broadcasters a great deal of power.

The old adage is never truer: with power comes responsibility. Those broadcaster who decide to run these news stories are, by definition, censoring those news stories. Many a well planned press release and news conference has been scuppered by the red pen (or delete key) of a news editor. Many a politician with a story to tell has been diverted into a completely different subject by the interviewer whose editor is intent on an ambush. A journalist once said that a good journalist is someone who gets a politician to say something they didn't want to say (or words to that effect). What arrogance! And this is another sport of journalists. Journos talking about other journos. Perhaps they will eat each other and we can start again. They have a curious way of confusing their own output with public opinion. An interviewer earnestly feels that he is representing the public when he puts his questions. Did he conduct a poll? How does he know what questions we want him to put?

The BBC, as well as being obsessed with class (a quaint notion about having upper, middle and lower strands of people) has often hailed the "end of deference". I, for one, agree that deference is not appropriate. I do however, feel that disrespect of politicians is wrong. What they have forgotten is that politicians were elected by us The People. By showing a lack of respect to our politicians, the unelected journos, editors and producers are showing disrespect to us, The People. The sad thing is that a free media that is not interfered with by government is surely an essential element in a democracy. The arrogance and downright rudeness shown by some broadcasters is undermining this notion and bringing free media into disrespect.

Any rumblings against this trend are never aired - for obvious reasons - the broadcasters simply ignore it. Politicians dare not complain for fear of being virtually boycotted by the media, or worse, being pilloried. It may be too late already. Those that interview politicians usually earn more than their interviewees. Isn't that symbolic of the shift in power in our society? In the UK, political parties are gradually merging into a liberal, left-of-centre lump, herded like sheep by the largely liberal minded BBC.

I am not suggesting that the BBC is institutionally biased nor that there is a great conspiracy. It's simply that it attracts liberal-minded people just as the majority of those in the arts tend to be on the left and industrialists on the right. That's the way it is. By the same token, the media have strong links with the entertainment industry. Surely, the mirror image of the damage done to politics is the generous promotion and subsidies given to the arts, including commercial cinema. How many other commercial enterprises are subsidized in this way? Could a ball-bearings manufacturer plug his product on the BBC in the way that a film or theatre producer can promote his? Imaging the uproar on the media if government subsidies to the arts were taken away. Also, though, imaging the uproar from the same media if my political representative asked for a pay rise!

The mad thing about this is that the BBC itself often muses about the lack of respect for politicians and the low turnout in elections. What nerve!

Lately there has been a great deal of anti U.S. sentiment coming out of the BBC. This was at one time confined to Justin Webb, their U.S. Correspondent who attempted on more than one occasion to belittle Americans. While he has recently been far more reasonable and more rounded in his coverage, the rest of the BBC's anti U.S. output seems to be gathering pace.

Surely a broadcaster which is supposed to be impartial should at least stick to a few ground rules:

1. Cut out the speculation: stop trying to predict the news. Just report facts

2. Don't analyze the news. Just report facts

3. Don't pass judgements. Just report facts

4. Don't load questions with biased judgements

5. Try to make questions shorter, so that the interviewees can be heard

6. Remember that you are part of a democracy and do not run the country. We have our own politicians to do that.

Those that study recent history will know of the important and sometimes heroic part that the media, including broadcast media, has played around the world, especially when combating reactionary regimes and aiding fledgling democracies. Bombed transmitters, locked-up and murdered journalists, smashed printing presses: all these inexcusable acts are a testament to the importance and power of the media. It will be tragic if too much power turns our society into a dictatorship - dictated by the media itself, leaving our politicians - and therefore us - as bystanders.

Perhaps we should wind the clock back a little. No to deference, but yes to respect. No to pontificating and yes to straight news reporting. Back to a bygone age such as that featured at bygonetv.com

Bygonetv.com features old tv shows such as The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet